Dear Mr B.,

On 7 January 2002, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman on behalf of your company, concerning alleged failure by the European Commission to respond adequately to requests for information.

On 23 January 2002, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 5 April 2002. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent by email on 28 May 2002.

I also note the following correspondence related to your complaint:

On 18 February 2002, you sent an email in which you requested me to provide you with the information that you had asked from the Commission. On 6 March 2002 I replied to your request.

On 19 March 2002, MEP Diana Wallis asked about the state of my inquiry into your complaint. I replied to MEP Wallis by letter dated 16 April 2002.

On 14 October 2002, you sent an email in which you requested me to provide you with documents which appeared to be documents of either the Commission or the Council of Ministers. By letter dated 30 October 2002, I replied to your request.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complaint was submitted in January 2002. The complainant made allegations on behalf of his company, a British producer of hemp products.

The complainant stated that he had unsuccessfully tried to get access to all information relating to Proposal COM (1999) 576, including all third party recommendations, and the proposed Regulation (EC) 1093/2001. Proposal COM (1999) 576 concerned the common organisation of the market in flax and hemp grown for fibre. Regulation 1093/2001 lays down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation 1673/2000 on the common organisation of the markets in flax and hemp grown for fibre.

The complainant stated that he had over two years tried to get access to the information. He had contacted his local Euro Info Centre, which according to the complainant had not been able to provide him with the information. He had complained about this, and the Euro Info Centre had advised him to contact the European Ombudsman.

The complainant had initially rejected the advice by the Euro Info Centre to contact the European Ombudsman, because he considered the Ombudsman to be "part of the same organisation" as the Commission. The Euro Info Centre nevertheless repeated its advice, referring the complainant to the straightforward process of making an electronic complaint through the Ombudsman's homepage.

In summary, the complainant made the following allegation and claim:

1. The complainant alleged that the Commission has failed to positively respond to his requests for all information relating to Proposal COM (1999) 576, including all third party recommendations, and the proposed Regulation (EC) 1093/2001, as well as other information that he has attempted to obtain through his local Euro Info Centre throughout the last two years.

2. The complainant claimed compensation for the present lack or refusal of information. He argued that the failure to provide the information left his company unable to make certain policy decisions.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The complaint was forwarded to the Commission. The Commission submitted, in summary, the following opinion:

1. Euro Info Centres

Euro Info Centres were created in 1987. They provide information and assistance to businesses in Member States and some third countries, and serve as an interface between the European institutions and small and medium sized enterprises.

2. The complaint

- 20 April 2001: Euro Info Centre

The complainant telephoned the Euro Info Centre in question, stating that he was looking for details of decision-makers related to Proposal COM (1999) 576.

A meeting was immediately booked with the complainant. The area of legislation turned out to be complex. The Euro Info Centre spent three hours finding information on the database Prelex. The information was sent to the complainant, together with a letter which explained that further information-searches could be done for a charge. The letter also confirmed the planned meeting with the complainant.

- 26 April 2001: the meeting with the complainant

The complainant was concerned that there was a deliberate attempt by the EU institutions to conceal information related to the hemp industry, and that these attempts might be part of general attempts to hamper the hemp industry. The staff at the Euro Info Centre attempted to a) understand the complainant's concerns, and b) reassure him that if he could be specific about what documents he required, the Euro Info Centre would make every effort to find them.

However, the Euro Info Centre felt that since a specific and clear request for information had not been made, they were unable to assist the complainant further.

- 1 May 2001

The Euro Info Centre sent the complainant a list of relevant websites which appeared to be relevant to his information needs.

- 24 July 2001

The complainant wrote to the Commission in Brussels. Receipt of his letter was acknowledged on 7 September 2001. The Directorate-General for Agriculture indicated that more time was necessary to answer to the complainant's request.

- 14 September 2001

The complainant contacted the Euro Info Centre to ask whether there was a time-limit for replies to the citizens by the European Parliament. The Euro Info Centre provided the complainant with the relevant information.

- 10 December 2001

The Euro Info Centre contacted the complainant's local MEP, who had also corresponded with the complainant about his information requests. The MEP's office informed the Euro Info Centre that it also had problems identifying exactly what information the complainant was looking for.

- 20 December 2001

The Euro Info Centre advised the complainant to contact the European Ombudsman if he felt that his information requests had not been dealt with adequately.

- 5 March 2002

The Commission's Directorate-General for Agriculture responded to the complainant's information request of 24 July 2001. This delay was caused by an internal error. The reply to the complainant had in fact been prepared in time, but due to a regrettable misunderstanding, the reply had not been sent to the complainant.

In its opinion, the Commission apologised for this mistake, of which it became aware after it had received the complaint made to the Ombudsman.

The Commission enclosed copies of correspondence relating to the complainant.

The complainant's observations

The Commission's opinion was forwarded to the complainant, who submitted the following observations.

The complainant felt that there had "at best been negligence and at worst obstruction". The correspondence enclosed to the Commission's opinion is "a small sample of the work I have put in trying to extract information that I have a legal right to and you have a legal right to supply".

THE DECISION

1 Preliminary remarks

1.1 In letters dated 18 February 2002 and 14 October 2002, the complainant requested the European Ombudsman to provide him with documents held by the Commission and/or the Council. The complainant's observations appear to confirm that he believes the Ombudsman to have the power to provide him with documents held by other Community institutions.

1.2 The Ombudsman replied to the complainant's requests referred to above, informing him that the Ombudsman does not have any powers to provide individuals with documents held by other Community institutions or bodies, nor does he have any powers to compel those institutions or bodies to provide individuals with documents.

2 Failure to respond to requests for information

2.1 The complainant makes allegations on behalf of his company, a British producer of hemp products. He alleges that the Commission has failed to positively respond to his requests for all information relating to Proposal COM (1999) 576, including all third party recommendations, and the proposed Regulation (EC) 1093/2001, as well as other information that he has attempted to obtain through his local Euro Info Centre throughout the two years preceding his complaint.

2.2 In its opinion, the Commission has given a detailed account of how its Euro Info Centre in question made efforts to assist the complainant. The Euro Info Centre provided the complainant directly with information, arranged a meeting with him, offered to conduct further searches, and gave advice on how the complainant himself could carry out further searches. It also corresponded with the complainant's local MEP - whom the complainant had contacted with similar information requests - to co-operate on identifying the information that the complainant wished to obtain. When the complainant remained dissatisfied with these efforts, the Euro Info Centre advised the complainant to complain to the European Ombudsman.

As regards the complainant's requests for information of 24 July 2001, the present complaint led the Commission to discover that no reply had been made. The Commission has explained that this was due to an internal misunderstanding. A reply was finally sent to the complainant on 5 March 2002. The Commission has fully acknowledged that this delay of more than seven months is not acceptable. It has apologised to the complainant in the course of the present inquiry.

2.3 The relevant question in the present case is whether the Commission complied with its duty to give an appropriate response to the complainant's request for information(1).

According to the material submitted to the Ombudsman, the Euro Info Centre made considerable efforts to provide the complainant with the information that he appeared to ask for. Thus, the evidence suggests that the Euro Info Centre complied with the duty to give an appropriate response to the complainant's request for information.

With regard to the delayed reply from the Commission's Directorate-General in Brussels to the complainant's request for information of 24 July 2001, the Ombudsman notes that the Commission has finally made a reply on 5 March 2002. The Commission has furthermore made a formal apology to the complainant for this delay. On the facts of the case, these steps are appropriate corrective measures.

On this basis, the Ombudsman considers that there appears to be no maladministration on the part of the Commission.

3 Claim for compensation

3.1 The complainant claims compensation for the lack or refusal of information. He argues that the failure to provide the information has left his company unable to make certain policy decisions.

3.2 In view of the Ombudsman's above conclusions on the complainant's allegation, there appears to be no need to inquire further into this claim.

4 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to be no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) Cf. the Commission's Code of Good Administrative Behaviour (Article 4, "Dealing with inquiries : The Commission is committed to answering enquiries in the most appropriate manner and as quickly as possible", and "Quality service : The public legitimately expects quality service and an administration that is open, accessible...."), published in the Official Journal of the European Communities: OJ 20.10.2000 L 267. Cf. also Article 22 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour that was submitted by the Ombudsman and approved by the European Parliament in its Resolution of 6 September 2001 (C5-0438/2000 - 2000/2212 (COS)) : "The official shall ... provide members of the public with the information that they request.". The Ombudsman's Code is available on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).